As the presidential candidates get closer... was presidential hopeful Ron Paul... crazy or Zane? The last thing I heard on CNN was about the Hi-Way from Mexico to Canada. From supposedly the democrats... Am I hearing things??? I am open to suggestions. Please, inform me if I am wrong!

Well, I see on your page you support Ron Paul. So quite frankly I don't see why you made this debate. Ron Paul is a republican, I'm not the biggest fan of past republicans, but Paul himself represents change that no other candidate will and can bring. Hes the only true candidate who is serious on ending these pointless wars and stopping are policing of the world. Candidates like Clinton and Obama say they will end the war, I mean maybe, but Obama himself has said he will attack Pakistan because of "Al-Quada"(who we trained and misused, no wonder why they "hate" us). Clinton is a lier and sells out to the green, so can we really trust her? Do we really want to continue the Bush/Clinton dynasty for another 4-8 years? The answer is NO.

Paul is the only candidate who realizes that our economy is being shot because of all the money we spend(waste) on these wars. Think about it, how much money are we spending over in the middle east on a daily average? He wants to end these wars and start worrying about the problems here in the United States. He also realizes that another issue with the economy is how we continue to print out more and more money to fund these wars. So as we print more and more bills, the dollar will only decrease like it has been.

Another thing Dr. Paul would like to do is to abolish the Federal reserve. It should of never been passed and it was secretly created by a group of bankers and then bought into the house of congress. If you think in any way that the federal bank helps the United States, please tell me so. They are a private organization who have no ties to the U.S. government, and when I say that I mean, they are not connected. As a private business the Federal Reserve is allowed to print money and loan it to the U.S. government so we have money. The catch is they loan it with interest, so were constantly under debt. Now wouldn't it make more sense to just have our own central bank(if thats what we want) instead of a central bank loaning us money? Because of this loan with interest, the government is forced to tax the people even more, hence the federal income tax, which does nothing but to pay our debt back to the Federal Reserve.

The failure of his candidacy was not his views. As a candidate running for the Job, he should have been more demanding. Remember Reagan said once when told to finish "I pay for this mic" Paul did not do so. When he started too recognized after the Giuliani vs. Paul on 9/11. Paul sounded like a broken record. Nothing new from him, that is why they did not ask him questions. As far as the apereance goes... well... He is loony.

So thats all you have to say? I mean I would think you would provide a little more information on why you think these views.

"As a candidate running for the Job, he should have been more demanding"

-As a candidate running for president you can't demand things, you are presented with what they give you. He can't in the middle of his debate ask for more questions, and actually he did in one. The question was attacking Dr.Paul on certain supporters who support the idea of a United States cover-up on the September 11th attacks. Instead of asking him a normal questions that would be presented to others, he was asked on if he supports that idea.

"When he started too recognized after the Giuliani vs. Paul on 9/11. Paul sounded like a broken record"

-First off, when who recognized? Dr. Paul offered the truth on the 9/11 attacks regarding the motivation of the attacks. Most Americans do and should know this already, but simply don't do their own research and believe everything their told , example the '9/11 commission report', which we all know now is completely unreliable. The truth of the matter is we were attacked not because they hate our freedom but because we've been brewing a mess in the middle east for the last twenty years.

"Nothing new from him, that is why they did not ask him questions. As far as the apereance goes... well... He is loony."

-Nothing new from him? Most if not all of his ideas are new and daring. What other candidate wants to remove corrupt government organizations such as the CIA and the Federal Reserve(not government)? To say that he was not asked questions because he doesn't say anything new is incorrect. His ideas represent change, a shift from the comfortable industrial-military complex, which relay's on endless and pointless wars to fuel its huge budget. A shift to a future that is seen as fixing the problems here in America, not spending billions in wars created to never end. So this idea of change creates fear to the establishment who controls the mainstream media, who in a way help to select the nominated winners, through bias subliminal messages within their scheduled airing. So Dr.Paul was asked less questions because of his ideas, they simply chose not to keep him in the debates because he was not one of their favorable candidates.

You chose not to reply to any of my points in my previous argument, if you wouldn't mind writing more, maybe you could.

As a candidate running for president you can't demand things, you are presented with what they give you.

-----Debates are made for the population to decide who they like best. The candidates have to show many qualities in the spotlight. How well they do under pressure? Can they defend their views and have the power to be heard?For instance: Many people liked Romney, even when he flip-flopped very often. Well he had a good posture, never had a bad hair day; he was basically the "Hollywood" candidate. Now compare Ron Paul with Romney in looks, posture and speach (not the content of the speach). Yes looks matter in this country for the general population.

Paul vs. Giuliani

Commentators after the debate:
David Gergen on CNN: "It was like a minor Nashua moment when Ronald Reagan, you know, seized the microphone, there was a quality here about showing his sort of, not only his anger but strength that I think served him well tonight."

Ed Rollins: "He looked very presidential … He had a Ronald Reagan moment, I think he had a Rudy Giuliani moment."

That moment could have been Ron Paul's moment of becoming a top tier candidate. If he would had come back with something like: What I find extraordinary is that Mayor Giuliani who clearly became one of the biggest public figures after the 9/11 attacks, has clearly not read the 9/11 commission report. Sounds to me that; if he read report, he would hear a lot more "absurd things" as he so eloquently put it.

"When he started too recognized after the Giuliani vs. Paul on 9/11. Paul sounded like a broken record"

Actually this was a typo. In a better explanation:

When Ron Paul began to be in the spotlight due to the Giuliani vs. Paul debate, people paid more attention to him. However in the following debates, he always said the same thing over and over. The gold standard, the humble policies, and much more. He should have brought in some of his other views, or better explained how to implement his views instead of giving history lessons. Something like… as President of the United States I would go back to the gold standard by ________ _________ then __________ ___________ FREEDOM!!!. fill in the blanks!

Nothing new from him? Most if not all of his ideas are new and daring.

-----They are not new; you just have not heard them in a long time. The Constitution and, the declaration of independence are quite old. Check out some of the old republican candidates. You might be surprised. Start with Barry Goldwater.

So Dr.Paul was asked less questions because of his ideas, they simply chose not to keep him in the debates because he was not one of their favorable candidates.

-----Obviously you did not watch all the debates, one debate a moderator looked at Ron Paul and said: Well obviously we now where you stand on this. And the comment was actually not mockery, but more like a compliment. Also, he was only kept out of one debate on Fox. Once again Ron Paul could have made a big deal about the so called "You decide 08" on Fox. He had raised plenty money.

Ok, maybe you wanted to defend Ron Paul and found yourself in the wrong debate, or I did not clearly posted my view. He has many very good views, not all but most. What brought him down was the way he express himself, and no variety on debating. I am sure he has influenced the republican party on the values that make a republican. But does not have the authority of presence and to influence leaders in such a way that will win him the white house, if he wants it that bad, he needs to change strategy PRONTO!

When you can only state your view on 20 second clips, do not just repeat the same thing for every question. There are ways to argue the same thing using different words. When he was not stating the same things for every question, he gave us history. Look people want to hear how things would be accomplished.

For example:

Q. Congressman Paul you have clearly stated you would get rid of the IRS. What would you replace it with?

His Answer…

NOTHING!!!! You know in 1913(Another History lesson). And the trillions spend in Iraq. Borrowing from China

However, if he would have started like…

The tax system today favors _________. The middle class people pay ____% of their salary. By beginning a gradual reduction of taxes, and vetoing bills like the Hillary library which will cost a billion zizzillion dollars the economy would see a ___% of growth per year.

That would begin to pull people towards him.

When Fox secluded him from the debate, wouldn't it been some title for the news:

In the news: Presidential hopeful Ron Paul has publicly asked the candidates of Republican Party not to endorse Fox news debate, as a demonstration to the world that in a democracy of the free world, no one has the power to manipulate the election.

Something like this would have force the candidates to speak about the issue at least as a minimum "The politics game"

He has plenty money raised by us, what is he going to do with it? I have no clue, but it sure has not provided anything yet.

I would like for him to show me what he is made of, but when Anderson Cooper told him I will be back to you in two minutes, what world did Ron Paul went to?
If he would have interrupted any other question and stated, you offered me an answer within two minutes and I hold you to that. (That shows leadership) Then speak all I wanted to, bringing resolutions to the table on all questions asked to the other candidates and not him.

When interrupted by Cooper who would most definitely do so, He needed to state the fact that there are four candidates at this debate, if what you wanted a McCain/Romney interview you should have done it at your show. This debate is for the public.

Ron Paul was a victim of his own poorly run campaign. His handlers worked him too hard, didn't give him new material, and softened him up too much.

When he finally had momentum,(Guiliani debate) he came out and took a middle of the road stance on 9/11 after that debate which peeled away at his support. It made him look weak, when he said that 9/11 wasn't an inside job and supported the terrorist thioery when he knows darn well that there's more to it than that. You can't be against the new world order and then claim nievety about 9/11, please!

If this weren't true would you support him? If the answer is yes, then he's your man. He, like all libertarians, want to dramatically reduce taxes and spending that gives people more than they ought to be receiving from government. You have us confused with anarchists. We just want goverment to get back to doing the job for which it was originally intended.

To my recollection, we were broke long before even our first campaign in Iraq. So I disagree that the rest of his philosophy is as insignificant as I believe you think it is.
The nanny state is one of his primary targets.

He wants to remove those tax's yes, but his foreign policy would save us the money we need to get back on the right track . Obviously all those tax's aren't going to be taken away, maybe one or two. He's the only candidate who can fix our economy and who realizes we can't save our economy until we stop policing the world

Ron Paul is a libertarian. I'm not saying that's bad, but as a president, it's not a good quality. The man wants to remove income taxes, estate taxes, excise taxes. Almost all taxes gone. Now I don't like taxes, but they are the main revenue for the feds. Even if his other stances are good, he's not a good candidate. His economic stance outweighs. Not good